It sounds like they're gonna screw up the sequel with "Modern Warfare level action". After that they have nothing good again.

No amount of quality will compensate for a type of game that people don't want to play.  Take Brutal Legend for example.  The game is high quality in what it does.  However, WHAT it did turned me off.  I do NOT want to do a rhythm mini-game in order to issue order to my troops in the game.  Can ANYONE here explain why doing this in an RTS part of a game is a great idea?  What does it add to the game, except annoyance when you are trying to fight a battle?  I don't see Patton or any other general playing a musical piece when ordering troops.

He makes a good point. Johnny R came in saying EA was going to shape up. He put a lot of focus on new IPs and taking chances. Basically all of those things have failed. EA has come out and said that they have.

When a game doesn't sell, it's a game that, at the very least, people didn't want enough to actually go out and buy. Johnny R spends too much times in forums and not enough time analyzing spreadsheets. He hears people saying they want original IP and games that take chances but he didn't look at the spreadsheets and see how in the past those games usually tank regardless of quality. People say that it's what they want but when it's time to put their money where their mouth is they go walk away from Dead Space and pick up Resident Evil. They look at Mirror's Edge and say, "that's not like COD" and pick up COD part 50.

Pachter is correct.

Brutal Legend is a great example. Activision spent like $9million on that game and then Shafer came back asking for like $5 million more and wanted another year. Acti drops it cuz, using reality, the sales of his games don't justify it. EA steps it and does the pro gamer thing. They probably ended up giving the devs more than $5 million. They had to settle with Activision for untold millions. EA spends millions advertising it. Gamers cheer and curse Acti but "reward" EA by completely ignoring the game when it was actually on shelves... proving Activision was correct in their assumption and making EA look like a company that goes out of their way to throw money down the trash can on games that people don't want.

The Saboteur is the risk EA took to offer the new experience and expand the market? really?

He's right, i think. EA's trouble has come from making "good" (i.e. high production values) games that the market largely doesn't want.

The issue is that they should recognize better which games clearly aren't going to be mega-hits (like Dead Space) and which ones are (like Mass Effect), and distribute funding more accordingly, rather than trying to pump everything up to AAA status and hope that pumps up the market.

Yes.

i think EA is improving,at least they made SOME original games e.g:mirros edge,dead space

Yeah, after hearing this I was expecting they'll proclaim DJ Hero by Activision a 'risky' title. it's a new IP after all! ^_^

Compared to Activision-Blizzard, EA also has the disadvantage that they don't have a Blizzard to always make their profits look good.

Gamers say they want original IP's, but hardly support any new IP's.